Slashdot Mirror
Under Attack by PanIP's Patent Lawyers?
Matthew Catalano, of the Dickson Supply Company, asks: "I work for a small plumbing, heating, irrigation, and BBQ supply house. Over the past four we have built up quite a website that houses tons of information and offers many products for sale via an online store. Recently a company known as PanIP has decided to sue us on 2 counts of patent infringement. To the best of my understanding, as you can see from their website, they claim that they invented the use of text and images as a method of business on the Internet. They also claim that they invented the use of a form to enter customer information. Obviously this is ridiculous and most likely won't hold up in court! However, this is not the problem. PanIP has also sued 10 other small companies. PanIP chose small companies because they hope that none of them can afford the legal fees that would ultimately remove their patents. Most defendants, including us, want to opt to bail out for a smaller licensing fee of $30,000. PanIP will continue this vicious cycle on small companies of which many of you may become victim of. Eventually they will have so many cases under their belt that they will be able to attack larger companies." Yet again, the USPTO is used as a weapon in the free market. When will someone get a clue and put a stop to this type of digital extortion?
"I am hoping to release this story to the press so that the US Patent office finally wakes up, but the media is unpredictable and unreliable in terms of which stories they encapsulate. If there is anyone out there who has any ideas about stopping PanIP or can help us out in any way it would be appreciated. Otherwise, just pass this along to everyone you know and hopefully something will come of it.
There is also a page we have constructed that reveals some more details."
While don't your company and the other smaller pool together to fight back? That way since you're all being attacked on the same basis it'll save each of you money and maybe get a better lawyer. Obviously in the courts you guys will win just due to prior art, like the case recently where that company claimed that hyperlinking was their invention and it took an 80+ year old to say "umm, no we've been doing this for 30+ years". Also, licensing is not a good way to go because you will certainly be tied to them. Hell, maybe you guys can contact IBM's ebusiness department to see if they could lend any help in this case due to the fact that it would be in their best interest to not let this get out of hand. Just my 2 cents...
can't sleep slashdot will eat me
Here is a plan for patent reform. I sent it (slightly modified) to my local congresscritter; if more peope did this, maybe we'd finally see a change.
If it were me, I'd contact the other defendants, and see if everyone were willing to pitch in to front one company challenging the validity of the patents. I'd look for some blatant prior art, which should be trivially easy to find. IANAL, but I'd be looking to get a summary judgement based on a mountain of prior art, and I'd want to ask a lawyer if it would be possible to countersue for malicious prosecution or fraud. You might also want to contact your senators or representatives -- you might be able to get the USPTO to "independantly" re-review their patents (and obviously, subsequently revoke them)
If the case is somewhat novel, then the ACLU or EFF have pooled together funds from many people in order to be able to set good precendents.
If the suit will obviously fall in favor of the defendant, can't you get a good lawyer to file a SLAPP suit, and you won't have to pay the lawyer unless you win?
Can you contact the companies currently under attack? If you all banded to gether to create some sort of defense fund, you could head them off at the pass. The Courts don't take well to a plaintiff that brings the same frivilous lawsuit back to trial after they've had it thrown out of court once already. It might be expensive, but not $300,000 expensive (10 companies X $30,000 settlement).
What state are you in? is it the same as PanIP? They have to sue you in your home state, remember. At the very least, make the proceedings as expensive for them as possible.
Most importantly, do not settle. You will end up validating a thouroughly disgusting business plan.
If you fall off a building, go real limp, because maybe you'll look like a dummy and people will be like hey, free dummy
When will someone get a clue and put a stop to this type of digital extortion?
Easy:
Most defendants, including us, want to opt to bail out for a smaller licensing fee of $30,000.
When people stop making money by patenting fake things and suing people and making money.
but the media is unpredictable and unreliable in terms of which stories they encapsulate.
If you have a problem, if no one else can help you, and if you can get them to accept your submission, maybe you can hire ASK SLASHDOT!
Otherwise, just pass this along to everyone you know and hopefully something will come of it.
Chainmail! The solution to all of life's problems...
[o]_O
Their Web site is cleverly designed to use a minimum of text and graphics, as well as containing almost no actual information, making it very difficult to bring down by Slashdotting. They really are sneaky, aren't they?
Guess I'll just have to go do an old-fashioned DDoS instead....
I patented the process of using the internet to search for unsuspecting small companies likely to fold under patent infringement lawsuits.
Might as well make that check out to me..
Call the EFF. The Electronic Frontier Foundation might be able to help you, and if not, they can certainly point you towards a good lawyer.
Fight 'em all the way.
This tagline is umop apisdn.
It seems that your case is very strong and at least some of the other organizations will recognize this as well. Banding together with the other companies will 1) Reduce your legal fees 2) Strengthen your case 3) Give all of you more negotiating power with PanID.
IANAL
You just might be able to get some useful pointers to prior art which could be used in your counter-suit.
Isn't this the sort of thing the EFF exists for?
To everyone else, join the EFF and make a donation, because the lesson learned in this case is that small guys need big friends, and if all the small guys in the world banded together, bullying tactics like this wouldn't work. Someday you just might be the small guy.
It is high time to make filing of patents that do not cover any real invention illegal. And it is high time that the USPTO is made legally responsible for damages caused by patents that are succesfully revoked.
Futhermore I think that patents on IT need to be granted or refused within a very short time or alternatively be automatically voided if the "invention" is in broad use when the patent is finally granted.
Interesstingly German patent law had the requirement that only inventions that are significantly more inventive than what an average expert can come up with could be patented at all. Sadly it seems that with the EU this is not valid for software patents anymore.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted and ignored otherwise.
Definately, this illustrates the need for patent law and patent office reform. However, I think it also identifies another fundamental weakness of the US civil courts: anybody can sue anybody else without real penalties, and make it so expensive to fight back that the victim better off settling. The court system is being used as an extortion racket.
Seems to me it would be worthwhile to adopt a "loser pays" system. PanIP would be free to sue this guy's company all they want, but when PanIP loses in court, they has to pay the other side's legal bills. Think of all the worthless lawsuits people file with lawyers who know they don't have a case, but are just throwing them out there to see who'll settle (*cough*JesseJackson*cough*). They're probably think twice about it, and make sure they actually have legal leg to stand on if they knew they'd have to foot the bill if they lose.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
Everyone knows it was Al Gore who invented that!!!
http://www.missionfaces.com/
There is a simple solution - call the folks at Amazon and tell them about the patents. This affects they way they do business. Let them fight it out with PanIP.
Eric Aitala
www.f1m.com
btw, anybody know what happened with that issue? I haven't anything about the windowing patent for quite some time.
I don't want knowledge. I want certainty. - Law, David Bowie
No, not at all. "SLAPP" stands for "Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation." The purpose of SLAPP suits is to eliminate whistle-blowers and muckrakers who expose corporate misdeeds. SLAPP has nothing to do with restraint of trade or patent law. The only way anything in this case could fall under the anti-SLAPP laws is if PanIP sued the poster for slander.
And no, I'm not a lawyer, but I'm also not an idiot who just babbles nonsense without any idea about what he is talking.
You can often get legal costs covered if you win, which is one reason the EFF and similar groups can often afford to be helpful. A first-glance look by a non-lawyer says that either their patents are totally bogus for this application or they're covered by prior art. The first one I looked at mentioned being about "terminals" and a central processor, and that certainly shouldn't apply here. There are also some similarities to the BT Hyperlink patent nonsense. It's especially worth talking to the other targets of this abuse.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
I'm so not a lawyer, so I ask: Can these guys sue the USPTO for issuing the bogus patent? It only seems fair to be able to recover court costs, at least.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Professionally and concisely contact them through one of the following venues, and let them know that their actions are being observed with disdain by thousands.
Please mod this up so Slashdot can continue to be the efficient political machine it often has been in the past. Just a simple call saying you dont like what they're doing, and mention the details of this situation, should be enough to make them think twice if everybody calls.
Here are the contacts, from http://www.panip.com/corpinfo.htm:
Mailing Address:
PanIP
329 Laurel Street
San Diego, California 92101-1630 USA
Telephone: 858-454-7095
Email: rmercado37@yahoo.com (really professional...)
Fax: 858-454-4358
The following lawyers help them in their tirade. CC and call them all. I'll begin with a copyable email list. The rest need to be contacted by phone:
webmaster@lyonlyon.com, kwalkerlaw@cox.net, info@chiresearch.com
And for those that would rather call, including some attorneys with no email address (What's up with that? Hello, 2002? Hello?)
BUCHACA, JOHN D. & HENRI CHARMASSON
1545 HOTEL CIRCLE SOUTH
SUITE 150
SAN DIEGO, CA USA 92108
619-294-2922
Kathleen M. Walker
3421 Thorn Street
San Diego, California 92104
Phone Number: 619-255-0987
Fax Number: 619-255-0986
kwalkerlaw@cox.net
Luce Forward Hamilton Scripps
Phone: (619) 236-1414
Fax: (619) 232-8311
600 West Broadway, Suite 2600
San Diego, CA 92101
And finally, their technical advisor:
CHI Research Inc.
10 White Horse Pike
Haddon Heights, NJ 08035 USA
Phone (856) 546-0600
Fax (856) 546-9633
email: info@chiresearch.com
requires two new moderation categories. IANAL -1 and LegalOpinion +1.
there's a term to describe this: barratry.
Here's a definition from the Bernard Shifman is a Moron Spammer (I know, but it was the first reference that came to mind):
If this PanIP company is seriously pursuing this sort of patent, this seems like good grounds for a countersuit...
Google search for 'PanIP' and 'Patents'
n ts
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=PanIP+pate
results in zero returned results...
Their website looks very crummy too - are you *sure* they are a legitimate business? I mean it's *very* hard to escape google's search with *zero results*.
You might just scare them off if you go "see you in court".
-- Dan "who is off to look up USPTO on PanIPs patents now..." =)
With patents, however, asserting a patent known to be invalid is an ANTITRUST VIOLATION. The opposing party can get treble damages plus attorneys fees. Also, if the case is not well founded, the patent statute (specifically 35 U.S.C. sec. 285) allows a judge to declare the case "exceptional" and award attorneys fees to the prevailing party. Infringement defendants use this provision to recoup defense costs of patent cases that are not well founded.
Also, because patent cases are EXCLUSIVELY federal, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, spoecifically Rule 11, requre attorneys to certify that cases filed are well founded. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which has exclusive jurisdiction over appeals of patent cases, has held in View Eng'g v. Robotic Vision Sys., 208 F.3d 981 (Fed. Cir. 2000) that Rule 11 requires an attorney to "read the claims onto an accused device." The process of reading claims means that you identify each element of the claim in the patent and then find a corresponding feature in the device you accuse of infringement. Rule 11 allows judges to sanction parties who fail to do that step.
Unfortunately, competent patent counsel are few and far between. I have seen cases brought by sole practitioners who spend their days doing personal injury work and have no concept of patents or the technology of the invention. This is how many frivolous suits get filed - by practitioners who do not take the time to learn the law and advise their clients properly. Also unfortunately, the only way to end it is to stomach it out and fight to the end to invalidate the patent. The words "legal defense fund" come to mind here.....
Laws affecting technology will always be bad until enough techies become lawyers.
For everyone suggesting that they band together, I believe they have taken the first few steps. The link from the question (labeled "more details") leads you to a site with a bunch of defendants. Namely, listed here.
Furthermore, I took a look at the patents (admittedly, only the abstracts), and while not as depicted as explained, still very vague and very obviously a stragety, not an actual protection of IP. First and second.
Looking at the abstract for the former of the above listed, I have a few qualms (besides with the whole thing entirely). The claim that they can have an infinite number of variations in the abstract (actually, on a quick search, they go into further details in the summary of the invention), it doesn't seem to me that what you're implementing can possibly be infinite. Note, I certainly ANAL (yet), but it just seems out of place.
Moving on to the second patent and it's respective abstract... it seems to me that such a patent had to be filed before September 11, 2001 (when the patent was made, hell throw that in your closing speech) as it seems the way it's described in both the abstract and summary of invention is very much alike to many implementations set forth by other companies, not just internet, but stores as well.
Good luck with that all. Open up a donation bin. I, for one, will throw in.
Lawrence B Lockwood is a name that appears on the patents... note this summary from http://www.law.emory.edu/fedcircuit/mar97/96-1168. html
Lawrence B. Lockwood appeals from the final judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., No. 91-1640E (CM) (S.D. Cal. Dec. 19, 1995), granting summary judgment in favor of American Airlines, Inc. In that summary judgment, the court held that (1) U.S. Patent Re. 32,115, U.S. Patent 4,567,359, and U.S. Patent 5,309,355 were not infringed by American's SABREvision reservation system, and that (2) the '355 patent and the asserted claims of the '359 patent were invalid under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103, respectively. Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 834 F. Supp. 1246, 28 USPQ2d 1114 (S.D. Cal. 1993), req. for reconsideration denied, 847 F. Supp. 777 (S.D. Cal. 1994) (holding the '115 and '359 patents not infringed); Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 877 F. Supp. 500, 34 USPQ2d 1290 (S.D. Cal. 1994) (holding the asserted claims of the '355 patent invalid and not infringed); Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 37 USPQ2d 1534 (S.D. Cal. 1995) (holding the '359 patent invalid). Because the district court correctly determined that there were no genuine issues of material fact in dispute and that American was entitled to judgment as a matter of law, we affirm.
so there you go: already after a few searches I've found out that 3 patents are already not wirth anything: http://www.panip.com/patents.htm ('115, '359, '355)
-- Dan "who has limited knowledge of law, but can surf the web" =)
https://www.panip.com/index.htm
Check it out! Quick, before they take it down.
Very weird, very confusing...
Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more, Or close the wall up with our American dead!
Ah, I am *so* sympathetic to your case!
A few years ago, a small company I worked for was targeted by some leeches like this, who had filed what our lawyers called a "submarine" patent, which is that they had an old patent, on a vague technology, and updated the filing to try to fit it to Internet terms.
They then started going after small companies such as ours, with the hope, just like PanLeeches that the smaller companies would lack the resources to properly fight them, and would just suck it up and pay the licensing fee.
Well, we didn't have the money, but we sure as hell weren't going to be bullied by these jerks. So we got a *really* good patent attorney, and it took about three letters from him, and the leeches disappeared.
In the end, it cost us a couple thousand dollars to fight it, but it was worth every cent. We never went to court because we established very early on that 1) we were *not* going to be push-overs, and 2) we hired *good* counsel, and that perception of losing to us in court was worth them leaving us alone to go pick on someone else.
Good luck to you in your cause. These freaks should be thrown to the wolves.
Dude,
Get yourself a decent lawyer. Per the complaint (and the specific patent information) you have posted on your website those guys don't stand a chance!
For example, in their Patent material they talk about customers dialing into the described system. Do all of your customers dial up to get to your website? Well, I looked at your website and I don't use a dialup system.
Also, all of the patent information is related to the travel industry. You are in the plumbing business. A good lawyer will find holes in their "argument(s)" big enough to drive an 18 wheeler through.
Per what I saw their patent is very specific in nature. They goofed up by not making it as general as possible. All you gotta do is review the patent for the business steps (logic) they propose and find where your business differs.
IANAL, but my understanding of patents are that they relatively easily gotton around. I believe you merely need to show how you have created the same thing but in a different manner.
Otherwise, for example, how could say Ford and GM compete with essentially the same "gadgets" in their automobiles. They do it by merely doing the same thing in a different manner.
Do a little research on the web on patents (www.findlaw.com is a good place to start) to prime yourself. And then go out and spend a couple of thousand on a lawyer. Stop wasting time, you're probably gonna have to do it regardless. It will be well worth your time.
BTW, I'm no fan of lawyers, but when you need one then it's best to just buckle up and get one rather than wasting time. It can save you a lot of pain and agony in the end.
Caution: Contents under pressure
You can try to initiate a Reexamination of the patent by the PTO. You can initiate a reexamination by paying a fee (currently $2,520 for ex parte and $8,800 for inter partes) and sending a brief including references to the PTO. Ex parte means that you are not involved in the process beyond the initiation. Inter partes means that you are involved in the process, and can file responses. You should send some really good references that have not been cited by the Examiner (not listed on the face of the patent.)
You can usually find someone who is willing to help you with the first few steps of the process at least for less than $30K. And I do agree with the above posters, you should band together with the other companies that have been sued. You can at least work together on the first few steps (finding references & writing the initial brief.)
Thalia
Here is a patent suit by the owner of the patents that PanIP claims. It is a good read because American Airlines was found to not be infringing because they were not using ALL the features the patent was for.
c kwood.htm
http://www.kentlaw.edu/student_orgs/jip/patent/lo
All joking and attempting to dispute the patent aside it might be worth a look to see if your company is violating everything in the patent, if not you can get off (though I am no lawyer).
Isn't the USPTO liable for the damages it causes by recklessly granting frivolous patents such as those you mention?
Sure, they're a government agency, but they ARE doing harm by granting these patents. They ARE costing businesses money, and probably end up making some go bankrupt trying to fight these crap patents (or through paying silly license fees).
Can't they be sued for gross negligence or something similar... A good suit like that would go a LONG way towards stopping the endless stream of crap that they've granted.
Just my non-lawyerly $0.02.
MadCow.
I used to have a sig, but I set it free and it never came back.
Depends how much of the material comes from the 1984 patent application. The applicants kept adding material, combining applications, etc, but appears to have gotten most of their raw material by 1993. The USPTO fought these people off for a long time -- 12 years.
The patent is probably not as broad as you were thinking. The term "means" is a very dangerous one for a patentee. See Chiuminatta Concrete Concepts, Inc. v. Cardinal Indus., Inc.
I did some searchs on the filer of the patents included on PanIP's website and found this interesting federal court decision .
Basically Mr. Lockwood tried to sue American Airlines over their SABRE system using the '359 patent and the district court found that SABRE did not violate the patents due to prior art (like the fact that SABRE has been around since 1962). The linked decision is an appeal that Mr. Lockwood made to the federal appeals court that was rejected. Worth a good read to see how it would apply here.
1) Patent examiners get paid some (low) base rate for examining a patent.
2) Patent examiners get paid a bonus for each case of prior art they find which invalidates the patent
3) Patent examiners get paid a bonus if they reject a clearly frivolous/and or obvious patent.
4) Patent applicants are fined for filing clearly fraudulent patents.
5) Repeat offenders of 4) are sentenced to prison terms.
Somewhat suspect company, for the following reasons:
Contact email address is: rmercado37@yahoo.com
Contact phone numbers (voice/fax) are both unlisted (www.infospace.com)
The website was only registered in 2000 - rather surprising for a supposed world player in IT.
The HTTPs server has some weird, weird unrelated stuff on it: https://www.panip.com/index.htm
The hosting company's website is not exactly professional - at least, I don't think an empty directory listing is very good: http://www.edgeinc.org
Chuck in a cut-and-paste job legal disclaimer (Google for its key-phrases) and we start to smell a scam.
This is why the US desperately needs a "loser pays" system similar to that used in English courts. If you choose to sue someone and lose, you end up having to pay *their* legal fees as well as your own. Thus if you are a small business getting sued by an asinine large business with a suit that doesn't stand a chance in court, you don't have to cave in just because the court costs are large. If the evil know-nothings suing you lose, they have the responsibility of paying for wasting your time and the court's time. That would kill the evil business strategy of "patent something everyone already knows how to do and then scare people into paying you license fees to do what they already knew how to do on their own."
Of course, the system has to have some careful safeguards in place, such as a small maximum reasonable amount of court fees to be responsible for (so that, for example, Joe Schmo doesn't have to take on the risk of paying for Microsoft's expensive lawyers if they sue him - he only takes on the risk of possibly paying for more reasonably priced run-of-the-mill lawyers no more expensive than his own.)
Personally, the safeguard I would like to see is that you end up only being financially responsible for the opponents' lawywers up to the amount you paid for your OWN lawyers. So if your laywer cost $3,000, and your opponent's lawyer cost $500,000, you at most could end up paying $6,000 if you lose ($3,000 for your own, and $3,000 worth of the opponent's lawyer's fee) If you think the case is so incredibly frivolous that you can defend yourself, you don't incur any risk of paying for the opponent's lawyers at all.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
First off, we need people in the USPTO office to actually read the patent submissions and maybe pay them enough to keep technically minded people working there. The turnover has got to be rediculous.
:(
And secondly, if we did the above, PanIP would not have been granted the patent. Nor would the guy who patented a method of swinging. Or many other stupid patents. Patents were designed to allow ingenious people protect their inventions and ideas. The method for inputting customer information on a computer is extremely obvious, and thusly doesn't qualify for a patent under current legislation. Or their 'invention' of the process of doing business by using the combination of images and text. Again, very obvious. I agree that 'processes', even in software, can and should be patented. I DO NOT agree that the end results should be able to be patented.
Some people disagree with Amazons '1 Click Purchase' patent. I don't. The text of their patent describes how it works, not just that a single click can purchase something. PS:Great business idea. There's no easier way to sell than with INSTANT GRATIFICATION.
I even agree with our legislation.
A software patent should something not obvious, and should explicitly and exactly outline a process. If we had Patent examiners who gave two shits about their job, things like these wouldn't happen. But, we'd probably have to pay them better. Mr. Bush probably gave all of their money to the army
You can't legislate goodness. Let each to his own destiny, by will of his freely made choices.
Speak to your state's attorney general's office, I bet they'd be willing to go after the company for fraud and extortion, along with a whole slew of other things. If it's criminal, the AG foots the bill as they're the ones pressing charges. Once the criminal case is won, you're almost garanteed the ability to sue the f'ing sh*t out of them.
And the Judin and Antonious cases. It is no longer safe for patent bullies to randomly attack defendants who might hire competent counsel to advise them. We recently used this to excellent effect to "encourage" a patent bully to file Notices of Voluntary Dismissal in seven separate cases. It works.
IANAL, but I can read better than that. Actually, the court only threw out one patent completely ('355), decided certain claims of other patents are invalid but didn't throw them out (this could mean either that there was some small innovation cloaked in excessively broad claims, or else that the court simply didn't find it necessary to review the entire patent to decide this particular case), and decided other patents simply didn't apply to AA's Sabrevision reservation system.
1) The court decision cited above invalidated the '355 patent completely, yet PanIP lists it on their website, along with a section entitled "Choosing a Stock Portfolio Based on Patent Indicators". They are trying to sell stock based, in part, on an invalid patent. Isn't this fraud?
2) PanIP evidently makes no products and apparently does nothing but file vaguely worded patents, then attempt to collect royalties on them. Judging by the two patents I looked at ('319 and '355), they ignore obvious prior art in their filings -- isn't that fraudulent too?
3) Since their business plan seems to be based on obtaining income through actions verging on fraud, barratry, etc., would RICO apply?
See http://panipcase.homeip.net - already posted by someone else but buried within a thread - this is a site for several companies already being sued by PanIP. They are all small companies of course, but if they club together and get help from the EFF etc, they could probably beat PanIP and countersue. It would be well worth signing up there and commenting on their discussion forum.